Herald: Officers demand halt to army cuts

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by MrPVRd, Sep 29, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/47924.html

    17,500 short? 8O

  2. I think if the situation is so serious these senior officers still serving need to find a LOUD way of voicing their concerns but not break QR's. I remember the Irish army used their wives as the officers themselves could not speak out.
  3. I doubt that the Regulations were made namely by her Majesty. Some unknown clerks in fact have invented them. So why the Queen was mentioned. Why can't be these regulations simply one of laws (passed by parliament)?
  4. Some figures, please bear with me:

    Our current Infantry operational commitments are as follows:

    Iraq: 5 x Battalions
    Afghanistan: 1 x Battalion
    NI (Non-Resident battalions): 1 x Battalion
    FRY: 1 x Battalion

    TOTAL Commitment: 8 x Battalions, each away for 6 months.

    I haven't even mentioned the Independent Coy Commitments (2 x Coys in Iraq, 1 in FI - effectively another Battalion) or what happens if the HRR Battalion deploys. Furthermore I haven't taken into account future commitments such as Afghanistan etc.

    Current policy is that you should get a MINIMUM of two years off between each 6 month tour in order to train and have some sort of quality of life. In other words the Infantry should only have 20% of its strength deployed at any one time. Therefore in order to support this 8 x Battalion commitment, you need a force of... 40 x battalions. At present there are 40 battalions in the British Army plus 3 Commandos in the RM, giving a total of 43 deployable Infantry units. However we're now going to be cut to 39; even if we get out of NI and FRY, we're still only going to release 2 x Units for future operations. Can somebody please explain how this makes us better and more deployable?

    I know that this isn't news to anybody, but for a Government obsessed with statistics and targets I think that this makes our current anger a bit more understandable.

    Incidentally there's no need to edit this post - all the information quoted is in the public domain.
  5. Despite what Tony Bliar believes and his intentions to disolve it, this Great Country of Ours is still a Monarcy. We, as Soldiers are responsible to the Queen first and HER Government second. The Oath that these Officers signed and the Queen's commision that they hold prevents them from speaking out, not for fear of the regulations. It's about pride, duty and belief in the Army that allows them to maintain their dignity. There endith the lesson!
  6. Quite so, Bravo2Nothing. One has got to explain occasionally to our Russian friend and other johnny foreigners how our system is.
  7. That's correct, Vonshot, this was over pay around 15 years ago.

    I imagine cutting battalions will not only affect operational committments, but will also have an effect on recruitment (as has already been mentioned here). Is the situation in Iraq affecting recruitment in any serious way as recruitment is being affected in the US?
  8. I though the acceptable thing to do was to resign, then speak out?

    Not enough senior officers ballsy enough to do that, or do they feel that they are better of staying in and trying to influence things that way?
  9. Ummm, Tim Collins, to a degree? This is the perennial question. The first time I came up against it was in the mid seventies when Service pay was horrendously bad and we were losing people in droves. The (reported) meeting of the then Chiefs of Staff contained the suggestion that they should resign rather than continue to implement Government policy. The (alledged) response was that they shouldn't do so as they would simply be replaced by men who would obey. Now, take your choice: they were either honourable men who elected to fight from within the system or they were time serving apparachiks concerned for their future honours and sinecures once they left the Service.........
  10. Goatman

    Goatman LE Book Reviewer

    um....its nothing to do with the present monarch Cagey.......Queen's Regulations is the name for Service law ( individual to each Service) ..... when the monarch is male they are called King's Regs......but I doubt there are any serving personnel who have known anything but Queen's Regs( invariably shortened to QRs) in their lifetime , as Queen Elizabeth II has been on the throne since 1952.

    I suspect the original Queen's Regs date back to Queen Victoria's accession in 1837, unless a copy was issued under Queen Anne in the early 18th Century.

    PS: who does this guy remind you of Tovarisch ?[​IMG]

    Slava Bogu !

    Lee Shaver